Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Feb-13-19, 09:08
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default The Big Fat Keto Diet Fail

https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-l...-keto-diet-fail


Quote:
Why It's Not Superior for Fat Loss
Let's first address the ketogenic diet's role on weight loss compared to other diets.

A 2006 landmark study by Johnstone et al, compared weight loss and the metabolic effects of a ketogenic low carbohydrate diet (KLC) and a non-ketogenic low carbohydrate diet (NLC) (3).

Twenty participants were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of calories as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of calories as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of calories as fat, approximately 40% of calories as carbohydrate) group. Protein intake was comparable (30% of calories) between the two diets, with the KLC group having a slightly higher intake (33%) than the NLC group (31%) (Table 1)


First, I would call this a comparison of a not necessarily ketogenic diet to a non-ketogenic diet, not sure I'd call the NLC (Zone) group (it was a study of the Zone vs. Atkins, Dr. Barry Sears was involved) low carb. I remember when we were so pasta-crazy that the Zone looked low carb in comparison. Those days are probably gone for most people here. As usual in a calorie restriction study, something not looked at is spontaneous calorie intake, which wasn't measured, since there wasn't any. The Zone worked great for me, I starved myself, I lost weight. There actually was a reduction in appetite somewhere in the middle of the diet--I'm of at least the suspicion that this can occur on any insulin-reducing diet when your body turns to its own body fat for energy, it won't always, but there's no reason to assume that it doesn't. For me diets don't fail during, they fail when I get to a reduced body weight. For my height etc., the calorie recommendation of the Zone diet was somewhere in the 1200 calorie range, a ridiculous level for my current fifty year old metabolism, let alone back when I was in my 30s and on the Zone. It did work during the bulk of weight loss--but in the long run, 1200 calories would basically be anorexic for me, and upping my calories from there would clearly also increase insulin, and in my experience, hunger and binges would follow.

Quote:
Following the 6-week trial, the researchers found no significant difference in terms of total weight loss between both groups. Although not considered statistically significant, the NLC group actually lost more weight (and fat mass) than the KLC group. Fat-free mass didn't significantly change in both groups.



A minor nitpicking on the qualifier "considered." Considered is a subective term--statistical significance is an objective measurement of data. I hate it when it's implied that things leaned a certain way, but weren't statistically significant--statistical insignificance means you really can't be sure which way things are leaning.

Okay--the diet I've found by trial and error that works best for me is ketogenic, and outside of the parameters of this study. This is an n=1 that applies to me, and I think since the odds that out of seven billion people I'm unique in this seem low, there are likely others it applies to. That doesn't mean I think it should be a general recommendation--in fact sending people first to a high fat ratio, near keto versus seizures version like I'm on would be silly, the word I use when I mean "stupid" but don't want to sound mean.

So after doing squat to "debunk" keto for weightloss, the author goes on to hit on its uselessness for muscle gain...


Quote:
To build muscle, a few criteria must be met. First, subjects must be in a caloric surplus – ingesting more calories than they're expending. Next, the subjects should be consuming adequate protein to build and repair skeletal muscle tissue. This usually amounts to 0.7g to 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight (1.6 - 2.2g/kg) (3).

Lastly, and most importantly, the subjects must be resistance training. A keto dieter should easily be able to meet the aforementioned criteria, right?

Not so fast! During a recent 8-week study by Vargas et al, 24 resistance training subjects were randomly assigned to a ketogenic diet group (KD), a non-ketogenic diet group (NKD), and a control group (4). A hyper-caloric state of 39 calories per kilogram of bodyweight was targeted in all subjects. Protein intake was matched at 2g/kg in both the keto diet and the non-keto diet group.


Injesting more calories than they're expending--of course not true, since most calories on the body are fat, and you can lose fat while gaining muscle. Often this sort of statement will come with qualifiers--new weight lifters, teenagers, people new to steroids, people returning to weight lifting (muscle memory) can gain muscle at a faster rate, at the expense of fat tissue. I've found it amusing on bodybuilding forums that if you want to lose a pound of fat a week, the recommendation is to eat 500 calories less a day--and if you want to gain a pound of muscle, it's very commonly recommended to eat 500 calories more a day, as if the calorie content of muscle and fat were the same. They're treated as if the one were opposite of the other, rather than just two things that happen at the same time, in whatever direction. In both cases, you step on the scale and pretend you know what that means.

Quote:
After eight weeks of a supervised resistance training program and diet intervention, lean body mass increased significantly in the NKD group and decreased in the KD group, albeit not statistically significant.

Although a caloric surplus was target in all groups, the KD group failed to reach it. Why? Well, we can only assume by the decrease in fat mass observed in the KD group that the satiating effects of the keto diet proved to be all too powerful, as referenced by several studies (5).



If there's only one thing you can assume, I can only assume it's for a lack of imagination.


He cites another study;

Quote:
In another study by Greene et al, researchers followed intermediate and elite weightlifters and powerlifters on an ad libitum (unrestricted) conventional diet or ad libitum ketogenic diet over the course of three months (6). Like the results of the previous study, those following a ketogenic diet lost total body mass as well as lean body mass.



So I looked up this study, just the abstract;

Quote:
A Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Mass Without Compromising Performance in Powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting Athletes.
Greene DA1, Varley BJ, Hartwig TB, Chapman P, Rigney M.
Author information
Abstract
Greene, DA, Varley, BJ, Hartwig, TB, Chapman, P, and Rigney, M. A low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet reduces body mass without compromising performance in powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32(12): 3382-3391, 2018-Weight class athletes use weight-making strategies to compete in specific weight categories with an optimum power-to-weight ratio. There is evidence that low carbohydrate diets might offer specific advantages for weight reduction without the negative impact on strength and power previously hypothesized to accompany carbohydrate restriction. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (LCKD) could be used as a weight reduction strategy for athletes competing in the weight class sports of powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting. Fourteen intermediate to elite competitive lifting athletes (age 34 ± 10.5, n = 5 female) consumed an ad libitum usual diet (UD) (>250 g daily intake of carbohydrates) and an ad libitum LCKD (≤50 g or ≤10% daily intake of carbohydrates) in random order, each for 3 months in a crossover design. Lifting performance, body composition, resting metabolic rate, blood glucose, and blood electrolytes were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The LCKD phase resulted in significantly lower body mass (-3.26 kg, p = 0.038) and lean mass (-2.26 kg, p = 0.016) compared with the UD phase. Lean mass losses were not reflected in lifting performances that were not different between dietary phases. No other differences in primary or secondary outcome measures were found between dietary phases. Weight class athletes consuming an ad libitum LCKD decreased body mass and achieved lifting performances that were comparable with their UD. Coaches and athletes should consider using an LCKD to achieve targeted weight reduction goals for weight class sports.


Okay, so lean mass loss was 2.26 kilograms. I remember years ago, the fellow who wrote the Testosterone Diet with Jeff Volek, a carb cycling program, wrote an article about a Volek study. Low carb, high carb, with and without weight training. There was a four pound difference in lean mass between low and high carb. Weight training increased lean mass in both groups relative to not weight training--and by the same amount, so that the dietary difference in lean mass remained the same. I was suspicious at the time and asked if it had anything to do with glycogen--the numbers are small enough here for that to be a major factor. Didn't get an answer then, but in recent years, Jacob Wilson has done work showing that if you include a carb up after the ketogenic dieting period, not only does the loss of lean mass disappear, the ketogenic dieters actually end up with the advantage--which I would put down to the usual glycogen overcompensation that occurs if you carb up after carbing down. Personally I think it's likely a wash.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Feb-13-19, 10:08
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Doing My Best
Posts: 4,924
 
Plan: LC/CancerRecovery
Stats: 170/135/130 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 88%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

Thanks for this.

What I've learned is that for those of us using LCKeto for health (as opposed to JUST weight loss) it takes time to ascertain what works best for us as individuals.

Objective: Optimum Health

No one eating plan is structured to accommodate the millions of variables that created my personal metabolism at this moment in time. I'm just stubborn enough not to give up in learning what will keep me healthy and mobile for the longest period of time.

I'm grateful that we have this forum full of information and people willing to share.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Feb-13-19, 10:26
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,176
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

DITTO.

After reading the many dissections of studies presented here on this forum over the last year, IMO, research has lost its validity: opinion overriding facts in far too many studies. FOr me, the bad actors have made me cynical. Maybe that is not a bad thing.....
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Feb-13-19, 13:08
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesinger
Thanks for this.

What I've learned is that for those of us using LCKeto for health (as opposed to JUST weight loss) it takes time to ascertain what works best for us as individuals.

Objective: Optimum Health

No one eating plan is structured to accommodate the millions of variables that created my personal metabolism at this moment in time. I'm just stubborn enough not to give up in learning what will keep me healthy and mobile for the longest period of time.

I'm grateful that we have this forum full of information and people willing to share.

Well stated. This is the key, and poorly designed studies making suspicious claims and assumptions are useless. My personal experience counts far more.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Mar-06-19, 06:13
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,602
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
Well stated. This is the key, and poorly designed studies making suspicious claims and assumptions are useless. My personal experience counts far more.


There's a limit to generalizations when it comes to nutrition. The SAD is not good for anyone, but on an individual basis, the guidelines become more and more fragmented.

From athletes training for endurance contests to people looking for better health by understanding which foods create bad reactions for them, what will work best for us can be very different.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.